S-TEAM . 

LIBRARY ' 

WY 

*,7€0 sr4, 3 . , 

2. fi %ji UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ' RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK. NC 277 11 

MAY 10 1995 AIR QuAI.In OFFICE PUNNING OF 

AND STANOAROS 

MEMORANDUM .. . 

SUBJECT: Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration, 

and Related Rt?quirernents for Ozone Nonattainment Areas 

Meeting the 0::one Natio ity Standard 

FROM : John S. Seitz, ~irecto 

Office of Air Quality 

TO : Director, Air, Pestici 

Management Clivision, Regions I and IV 

Director, Air and Waste Management Division, 

Region I1 

Director, Air, Radiation and Toxics Division, 

Region I11 

Director, Air and Radiation Division, 

Region V 

Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division, 

Region VI 

Director, Air and Toxics Division, 

Regions VII, VIII, IX, and X 

I. Policv 

This memorandum set:; forth EPAts interpretation of certain 

requirements of subpart 2 of part D of title I of the Clean A-ir 

Act as they relate to ozone nonattainment areas that are meeting 

the ozone NAAQS. Specifi.cally, it addresses whether such areas 

must submit SIP revisions; concerning reasonable further progress 

and attainment demonstrat;ions. The requirements at issue include 

the 15 percent plan and attainment demonstration requirements of 

section 182 (b) (1) for moderate and above ozone nonattainment 

areas and the attainment demonstration and post-1996 RFP 

requirements of section 182(c)(2) for serious and above ozone 

nonattainment areas. Related requirements include the moderate 

ozone nonattainment requirements of section 172(c)(9) concerning 

contingency measures, the serious ozone nonattainment area 

requirements of section 182(c)(9) concerning contingency 

measures, section 182(c)(5) concerning transportation control 

measures and section 182(y) concerning milestones. They also 

include the elements of the severe and extreme ozone 

nonattainment area requirements of section 182(d)(l)(A) 

concerning vehicle miles traveled that are related to RFP 

requirements. 
For the reasons described below, EPA believes that it is . reasonable to interpret these provisions so as not to require 

areas that are meeting the ozone standard to make the SIP . 

submissions to EPA described in the provisions as long as the 

areas continue to meet the standard. If such an area were to 

monitor a violation of the standard prior to being redesignated I. - 

to attainment, however, the area would have to address the 

pertinent requirements and submit the SIP revisions described in 

those provisions to EPA. 

This memorandum also describes the process by which EPA will 

determine that an area is attaining the ozone standard and need 

not make these SIP submissions. 

11. Intermetation and Leaal Rationale 

The EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret provisions 

regarding RFP and attainment demonstrations, along with related 

requirements, so as not to require SIP submissions if an ozone 

nonattainment area subject to those requirements is in fact 

attaining the ozone standard (i.e., attainment of the NAAQS is 

demonstrated with 3 consecutive years of complete, qualityassured air quality monitoring data). The EPA has previously 

interpreted the general provisions of subpart 1 of part D of 

title I (sections 171 and 172) so as not to require the 

submission of SIP revisions concerning RFP , attainment 

demonstrations, or continqency measures, and EPA believes it is 

appropriate to interpret 1:he ozone-specific provisions of subpart 

2 in the same manner. 

~irst, with respect 1:o RFP, section 171(1) states that, for 

purposes of part D of title I, RFP llmeans such annual incremental 

reductions in emissions 01; the relevant air pollutant as are 

required by this part or may reasonably be required by the 

Administrator for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the 

applicable NAAQS by the applicable date." Thus, whether dealing 

with the general RFP requirement of section 172(c).(2), or the 

more specific RFP requirements of subpart 2 for classified ozone 

nonattainment areas (the 25 percent plan requirement of section 

182(b)(l) and the 3 percent per year requirement of section 

182 (c) (2) ) , ' the stated purpose of RFP is to ensure attainment by 

the applicable attainment date. If an area has in fact attained 

the standard, the stated purpose of the RFP requirement will have 

'EPA notes that paragraph (I), of subsection 182(b) is 

entitled "PLAN PROVISIONS FOR REASONABLE FURTHER PROGRESS" and 

that subparagraph (B) of paragraph 182 (c) (2) is entitled 

"REASONABLE FURTHER PROGRESS DEMONSTRATION,I1 thereby making it 

clear that both the 15 percent plan requirement of section 

182(b)(1) and the 3 percent per year requirement of section 

182(c),(2) are specific varieties of RFP requirements. 
already been fulfilled and EPA does not believe that the area 

need submit revisions providing for the further emission 

reductions described in the RFP provisions of section 182(b)(l)' 

and 182 (c) (2) (B) and (C) , 

The EPA notes that it took this view with respect to the .. - 

general RFP requirement of section 172(c)(2) in the General 

Preamble for the Interpretation of Title I of the Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990 (57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992)), and it is now 

extending that interpretation to the specific provisions of 

subpart 2. In the General Preamble, EPA stated, in the context 

of a discussion of the rtiquirements~appLicable to the evaluation 

of requests to redesignate nonattainment areas to attainment, 

that the '@requirements for RFP will not apply in evaluating a 

request for redesignation to attainment since, at a minimum, the 

air quality data for the area must show that the area has already 

attained. Showing that the State will make RFP towards 

attainment will, therefore, have no meaning at that pointN (57 FR 

13564) .2 

Second, with respect to the attainment demonstrat-ion 

requirements of section 182 (b) (1) and 182 (c) (2) , an analogous 

rationale leads to the same result. Section 182(b)(1) requires 

that the plan provide for "such specific annual reductions in 

emissions . . . as necessary to attain the primary NAAQS by the 

attainment date applicable under this Act." Section 182(c)(Z)(A) 

simply requires a Itdemonstration that the plan, as revised, will 

provide for attainment of the ozone NAAQS by the applicable '. attainment date." As with the RFP requirements, if an area has 

in fact monitored attainment of the standard, EPA believes there 

is no need for an area to make a further submission containing 

additional measures to achieve attainment. This is also 

consistent with the interpretation of the section 172(c) 

requirements provided by EPA in the General Preamble to title I, 

as EPA stated there that no other measures to provide for 

attainment would be needed by areas seeking redesignation to 

attainment since "attainm.ent will have been reachedu (57 FR 

13564; see also September 4, 1992 Calcagni memorandum). 

Other SIP submission requirements are linked with these 

attainment demonstration and RFP requirements, and similar 

reasoning applies to them. The first of these additional 

'see also ?Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate 

Areas to Attainment, It from John C,alcagni, Director, Air Quality 

Management Division, to Regional Air Division Directors, 

September 4, 1992, at pagta 6 (stating that the wrequirements for 

reasonable further progress . . . will not apply for 

redesignations because they only have meaning for areas not 

attaining the standard1@) (hereinafter referred to as "September 

19 92 Calcagni memorandumti) . 
requirements are the con1:ingency measure requirements of section. 

172 (c) (9) and section 182 (c) (9) . The EPA has previously 

interpreted the continge~lcy measure requirement of section 

172(c) (9) as no longer being applicable once an area has attained 

the standard since those ucontingency measures are directed at 

ensuring RFP and attainmcint by the applicable dateu (57 FR 13564; " 

* 

see also September 4, 1992 Calcagni memorandum). Similarly, as 

the section 182 (c) (9) coritingency measures are linked with the 

RFP requirements of secti.on 182 (b) (1) and 182 (c) (2), the 

requirement of section 182(c) (9) no longer applies once an area 

has attained the standard. 

Other requirements related to the attainment demonstration 

and RFP provisions include: (1) the section 182(c)(5) 

requirement regarding the submission of a demonstration as to 

whether various parameters related to transportation "are 

consistent with those used for the area's demonstration of 

attainment"; (2) the section 182 (g) requirements concerning 

milestones that are based on the section 182(b)(1) and 

182 (c) (2) (B) and (C) submissions; and (3) the elements of the 

section 182(d)(l)(A) requirement for SIP revisions identifying 

and adopting transportation control' strategies to achieve 

reductions in motor vehic1.e emissions that relate to the RFP 

requirements of section 182 (b) (1) (A) and 182 (c) (2) (B) . Inasmuch 

as each of these requirem12nts is linked with the attainment 

demonstration or RFP requirements of section 182(b)(I) or 

182(c)(2), if an area is not subject to the requirement to submit 

the underlying attainment demonstration or RFP plan, it need not 

submit the related SIP revision either. 

The EPA emphasizes that this interpretation does not extend 

to requirements of subpart 2 that are not linked by the language 

of the Act with the attairrment demonstration and RFP 

requirements. For example, this interpretation does not apply to 

requirements such as VOC KACT requirements, for which, in 

contrast to NOx RACT requirements under section 182(f),, the Act 

does not establish a mechanism to grant exemptions if an area has 

attained the standard, or to the requirements to submit SIP 

revisions providing for basic or enhanced I/M programs. 

The EPA also emphasizes that the lack of a requirement to 

submit SIP revisions concerning these RFP, attainment 

demonstration, and other related requirements exists only for as 

long as a nonattainment area continues to monitor attainment of 

the standard. If such an area experiences a violation of the 

NAAQS, the basis for the requirements not being applicable would 

no longer exist. Therefore, the area would again be subject to a 

requirement to submit the pertinent SIP revision or revisions and 

would need to address those requirements. Thus, a determination 

that an area need not submit one of the SIP submittals amounts to' 

no more than a suspension of the requirement for so long as the 

area continues to attain the standard. If EPA ultimately 
redesignates the area to attainment, then the area will be 

entirely relieved of these requirements to the extent the 

maintenance plan for the area does not rely on them. 

Also, EPA notes that: in the case of a multistate .. . nonattainment area, the entire rnultistate nonattainment area must 

have monitoring data demanstrating attainment for the SIP 

submission requirements t,o be suspended. Thus, the requirements 

applicable to one part of such an area may not be suspended on 

the basis of a determination only that that part of the 

nonattainment area is monitoring attainment. The EPAfs Regional 

Offices should coordinate these determinations for any m~ltistate 

nonattainment areas that involve more than one Region. 

111. Process 

The EPA Regional Offices will conduct individual rulemakings 

concerning areas that have 3 consecutive.years of clean air 

quality monitoring data demonstrating attainment of the ozone 

standard to make binding determinations that the areas have 

attained the standard and need not make whichever of the SIP 

revisions discussed above are pertinent. Since EPA has the 

relevant air quality data in its possession, no submission from a 

State would be required tc:, initiate this process. However, a 

State would be free to submit a petition to the appropriate EPA 

Regional Office to notify the office that it believes that a 

certain nonattainment areir is eligible for these determinations 

on the basis of monitored attainment of the ozone NAAQS. 

As noted above, thesc? determinations would be contingent on 

the existence of monitoring data for the'areas that continue to 

demonstrate attainment. Sf EPA subsequently determines that an 

area has violated the starrdard, the basis for the determination 

that the area need not make the pertinent SIP revisions would no 

longer exist. The EPA would notify the State of that 

determination and would al.so provide notice to the public in the 

Federal Reqister. Such a determination would mean that the area 

would thereafter have to address the pertinent SIP requirements 

within a reasonable amount of time, which EPA would establish 

taking into account the individual circumstances surrounding the 

particular SIP submissions at issue. 

The State must continue to operate an appropriate air 

quality monitoring network, in accordance with 40 CFR part 58, to 

verify the attainment status of the area. The air quality data 

relied upon for the above determinations must be consistent with 

40 CFR part 58 requirements and other relevant EPA guidance and 

recorded in EPAts Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS). 

Determinations made by EPA in accordance with this 

interpretation,would not shield an area from EPA action to 

require emission reduction~s from sources in the area where there 
is evidence, such as photochemical grid modeling, showing that , 

emissions from sources in the area contribute significantly to . 

nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, other , 

nonattainment areas. The EPA has authority under the Act 

(section 110(a)(2)(D) in the case of areas in other States and 

section 110(a)(2)(A) in the case of intrastate areas) to require . - 

emissions reductions if necessary and appropriate to deal with 

transport situations. 

IV. Consequences for Redesianations. Sanctions, and Conformitv 

Determinations made by EPA that an area has attained the 

NAAQS and need not make one or more of the SIP submissions 

discussed above is not equivalent to the redesignation of the 

area to attainment. Attainment of the standard is only one of 

the criteria set. forth in section l07(d) (3) (E) that must be 

satisfied for an area to be redesignated to attainment. To be 

redesignated, the State must submit and receive full approval of 

a redesignation request for the area that satisfies all of the 

criteria of that section, including the requirement of a 

demonstration that the improvement in the area's air quality isdue to permanent and enfo1:ceable reductions, and the requirements 

that the area have a fully-approved SIP which meets all of the 

applicable requirements under section 110 and part D, and a 

fully-approved maintenance plan. 

If an area for which the determination of attainment is made 

has submitted or subsequently submits a redesignation request, 

the SIP submissions discus:sed in this memorandum would not be 

required for the area's redesignation request to be approved 

since they would no longer be considered applicable requirements 

under section 107(d)(3)(E). If the area violates the standard 

prior to final action on the redesignation request, however, not 

only would the requirements again become applicable, but the 

redesignation request could not be approved because the area 

would no longer meet the criterion of having attained the 

standard. 

As a consequence of a de'termination that an area has 

monitoring data demonstrating attainment of the ozone standard, 

thereby removing, at least temporarily, the pertinent SIP 

submittal requirements discussed above, any sanction clock that 

had been started as a consequence of the failure to make such a 

submission, the incompleteness of such a submission, or the 

disapproval of such a submission, would be stopped since the 

deficiency that had led to the starting of the clock would no 

longer exist. 

The issuance of a det,ermination pursuant to this policy will 

have no immediate impact on the way conformity is demonstrated. 

Areas will continue to demonstrate conformity using the build/nobuild test and less-than-1990 test (section 51.436-51.446 of the 
conformity rule), and the 15 percent SIP if one has been 

submitted (and attainment/RFP SIP, if one with a budget has been 

submitted). 

Since areas that are the subject of determinations pursuant 

to this policy will not be required to submit RFP or attainment '' - 

demonstration SfPfs, those areas will not generally be in the 

control strategy period for conformity purposes (i.e., have a 

control strategy SIP approved and buildlno-build test no longer 

required) for so long as the area does not violate the standard. 

Those areas will not generally have approved budgets until a 

maintenance plan is approved as part of the approval of a 

redesignation request, so the buildlno-build test and less-than1990 test--in addition to any applicable submitted budgets--will 

be required until then. (A maintenance plan budget does not 

apply for conformity purposes until the maintenance plan has been 

approved, except as provided by section 51.448(i) of the 

conformity rule (which applies to areas that are required to 

submit a 15 percent SIP but submit a maintenance plan instead).) 

If an area receiving a determination pursuant to this policy 

had previously.submitted a 15 percent or attainment SIP, it may 

choose to withdraw the submitted SIP through the submission of a 

letter from the Governor or his or her designee in order to 

eliminate the applicability of its motor vehicle emission budget 

for conformity purposes. This is because that area would not be 

subject to the 15 percent and attainment demonstration 

requirements of section 182(b)(l) for so long as the area 

continues to attain the standard. If the submitted SIP is not 

withdrawn, the budget in that submission will continue to apply 

for conformity purposes. IS the submitted 15 percent or 

attainment SIP is withdrawn, only the build/no-build and lessthan-1990 tests would apply until a maintenance plan is approved. 

However, areas that are already demonstrating conformity to 

a submitted maintenance plan pursuant to section 51.448(i) may 

continue to do so, or may elect to withdraw the applicability of 

the submitted maintenance plan budget for conformity purposes 

until the maintenance plan is approved. The applicability may be 

withdrawn through the submission of a letter from the Governor or 

his or her designee. If the applicability of the submitted 

maintenance plan budget is withdrawn for conformity purposes, the 

build/no-build and less-than-1990 tests will apply until the 

maintenance plan is approved. 

For areas which receive a depermination pursuant to this 

policy and whose conformity status has lapsed due to a failure to 

submit a 15 percent SIP or to the submission of an incomplete 15 

percent SIP without a protective finding, the lapse imposed by 

section 51.448(b) and (c) (1) (ii) will be removed. However, the 

conformity status of the plan and TIP cannot be restored if 
conformity has lapsed for any other reason (e.g., failure to 

redetermine conformity by a certain date). 

If you have any quesl:ions, please feel free to call me o'r 

Sally Shaver. The.contac1: persons for this policy are Carla 

Oldham at (919) 541-3347 iind Kathryn Sargeant at (313) 668-4441 ,. 

for transportation conforrnity requirements. 

cc: Rob Brenner 

Alan Eckert 

Tom Helms 

Phil Lorang 

Rich Ossias 

Margo Oge 

Joe Paisie 

John Seitz 

Sally Shaver 

Lydia Wegman 

Dick Wilson